Three strike laws is a statute enacted by America states whereby after committing two crimes your third crime will, no matter how small, land you a life sentence. Although proving to be too liberal a policy for Texas to adopt, in turn favouring their one strike law, it is a policy spread widely over America. This statue became very popular in the early 1990s when tri-offending was at its heigh, after careful consideration of the facts it was concluded that letting people commit two felonies was permissible but on the third they would be hammered for it. The name of the bill is such because of the occasion in which its inception was made. In 1994, on Tuesday afternoon congress posed the bill to a lethargic George H. W. Bush, for him to sign.
The three strikes law is primarily to deter those who commit crimes from repeat offending. As one can see from the statistics it has been extremely successful in incarcerating those who commit petty theft, carry marijuana on them, or get a parking ticket. After the introduction of the Three Strikes Law prison warders began generally agreeing that their job had become at least twice as easy, as keeping someone who hasn't returned their video tape rentals three times in a row down is far easier than suppressing a murderer.

Contents

This poor stick-man was a vandal, a thief, and a hippie, the maximum security unit was the best place for him.

The history of the Three Strike Law is stooped in controversy. There have been frequent incidents of namby pamby liberals screaming out that prison isn't the place for shoplifters, that a system of justice based on baseball is wrong, and that McDonald's are run by communists who are fattening America up so they stand a chance in WW3[2]. The law was first passed in Washington, then closely followed by California in large majorities. The law, at the time, was simply called Three Strikes and you're Out to make it easily understood by even the most stereotypical of Americans. Incidentally, a BBC game show by the same name charting the rise and fall of those who were effects by this law was rejected on ground of not wanting to subject intelligent English viewers to the trials and tribulations present in rural America. Slowly the law began to spread to other states, but none adopted it as fervently as California, who took to the law like a paedophile to a insecure teenager. In fact, in 2005, over 65% of those imprisoned under the Three Strike Law were non-violent offenders. And if that wasn't good enough, African-Americans sentences in Californian state court on felonies receive a prison sentence 52% of the time, whilst whites receive it just 34%. What a triumph for the American Dream.

By 2004, twenty six states used a system of justice which fitted the criteria of being a "Three Strike Law" system. Another fantastic addition to this law is the total inability to parole until your 25th year if convicted within the Three Strike law. There isn't much one can say in that situation, except have the judge scream Youuuu'reeee out! and slam his hammer down as a final testament to the injustice of America.

After stealing his third cookie in a row, poor little Kevin was sentences to a lifetime behind bars.

The effects of this law are widespread, there have been numerous occasions of the law working exactly as intended, and even more of it working better. Take for example the vile excuse for a human, Leandro Andrade. This man is now serving two life sentences in a Californian prison for the most heinous of crimes. He shoplifted not one video tape, not two, ah I bet you think three, no he stole 9 video tapes. He had it coming is all that I can say.

Another example would be Kevin Webber, who received 26 years for stealing 4 chocolate chip cookies[3].

These two cases raise the question why when your on your third chance, you don't you do something major. I'm not for one moment condoning serious crimes, but its better to go out with a bang than with a whimper. Nobody wants to spend 26 years of their life with murderers for having an impromptu hankering for sweets next to a patisserie with no change on them. It can only lead to bad things.

This principle refers to the way in which some governments are feeling liberal and amend the Three Strike Law to be more of a one strike law. Now obviously this is grossly unfair to those who commit minor crimes but when considered carefully by a board of highly trained international relations advisor they saw this variant of the law fit for use in all states where the African-American population outnumbers the white population. I wonder why. I guess some mysteries in life will just go unsolved. Although originally they wanted to copy the principles of the Middle East, and sever your hands from your body at the neck if you were caught so much as flatulating in public this was rejected on ground of having nowhere to hide the bodies. "You cant shred the bodies like we shred all the important documents" George Bush jn. was revealed to have said in a document too thick to be shredded.

Due to the popularity of the Three Strike Law[4] many new areas of government based on popular sports have been suggested. Also current ones that are loosely based on sports but could do with more clearly defined boundaries have been highlighted. The process of presidential elections for example has been pointed out to work in much the same way as a beauty pageant. But could still be improved further if all the parading around the states was cut out. The candidate would simply dress us in a sparkly sequinned robe and show the judges (the public) their one talent. For example, John McCain could impress the people of America by his ability to bore anyone, young or old, into a deep sleep with his terribly long and drawn out war stories.

Changes have also been suggested to American foreign policy, although right now it resembles one sport in particular very closely there is one simple change that could be made to make it infinitely better. Right now the similarity between American foreign policy and target shooting is uncanny. But the one change that is being suggested by congress is that instead of scoring point based on where you hit the target, you score points based on how many targets you hit. It's already going that way at the moment, so a nudge in the right direction wouldn't hurt anybody[5]